Lawson-Boyd Elsher, Meloni Maurizio
Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2021 Jun 15;15:667896. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.667896. eCollection 2021.
Epigenetics stands in a complex relationship to issues of sex and gender. As a scientific field, it has been heavily criticized for disproportionately targeting the maternal body and reproducing deterministic views of biological sex (Kenney and Müller, 2017; Lappé, 2018; Richardson et al., 2014). And yet, it also represents the culmination of a long tradition of engaging with developmental biology as a feminist cause, because of the dispersal of the supposed 'master code' of DNA among wider cellular, organismic and ecological contexts (Keller, 1988). In this paper, we explore a number of tensions at the intersection of sex, gender and trauma that are playing out in the emerging area of neuroepigenetics - a relatively new subfield of epigenetics specifically interested in environment-brain relations through epigenetic modifications in neurons. Using qualitative interviews with leading scientists, we explore how trauma is conceptualized in neuroepigenetics, paying attention to its gendered dimensions. We address a number of concerns raised by feminist STS researchers in regard to epigenetics, and illustrate why we believe close engagement with neuroepigenetic claims, and neuroepigenetic researchers themselves, is a crucial step for social scientists interested in questions of embodiment and trauma. We argue this for three reasons: (1) Neuroepigenetic studies are recognizing the agential capacities of biological materials such as genes, neurotransmitters and methyl groups, and how they influence memory formation; (2) Neuroepigenetic conceptions of trauma are yet to be robustly coupled with social and anthropological theories of violence (Eliot, 2021; Nelson, 2021; Walby, 2013); (3) In spite of the gendered assumptions we find in neuroepigenetics, there are fruitful spaces - through collaboration - to be conceptualizing gender beyond culture-biology and nature-nurture binaries (Lock and Nguyen, 2010). To borrow Gravlee's (2009: 51) phrase, we find reason for social scientists to consider how gender is not only constructed, but how it may "become biology" via epigenetic and other biological pathways. Ultimately, we argue that a robust epigenetic methodology is one which values the integrity of expertise outside its own field, and can have an open, not empty mind to cross-disciplinary dialogue.
表观遗传学与性和性别问题存在着复杂的关系。作为一个科学领域，它因过度关注母体身体并重现关于生物性别的决定论观点而受到严厉批评（肯尼和米勒，2017；拉佩，2018；理查森等人，2014）。然而，由于所谓的DNA“主代码”在更广泛的细胞、机体和生态环境中的分散，它也代表了将发育生物学作为女权主义事业的悠久传统的 culmination（此处原文有误，推测可能是culmination，意为“顶点、高潮”），（凯勒，1988）。在本文中，我们探讨了在神经表观遗传学这一新兴领域中，性、性别和创伤交叉处正在显现的一些紧张关系——神经表观遗传学是表观遗传学中一个相对较新的子领域，特别关注通过神经元中的表观遗传修饰建立的环境与大脑的关系。通过对顶尖科学家的定性访谈，我们探讨了神经表观遗传学中创伤是如何被概念化的，同时关注其性别维度。我们回应了女性主义科学技术研究学者对表观遗传学提出的一些担忧，并阐明了为什么我们认为与神经表观遗传学的主张以及神经表观遗传学研究者本身密切接触，对于关注身体体现和创伤问题的社会科学家来说是至关重要的一步。我们提出这一观点有三个原因：（1）神经表观遗传学研究正在认识到基因、神经递质和甲基等生物材料的能动能力，以及它们如何影响记忆形成；（2）神经表观遗传学对创伤的概念尚未与关于暴力的社会和人类学理论紧密结合（艾略特，2021；尼尔森，2021；瓦尔比，2013）；（3）尽管我们在神经表观遗传学中发现了性别假设，但通过合作，仍有富有成效的空间超越文化与生物学、自然与养育的二元对立来概念化性别（洛克和阮，2010）。借用格拉夫利（2009：51）的话说，我们发现社会科学家有理由思考性别不仅是如何被建构的，而且它如何可能通过表观遗传和其他生物学途径“成为生物学”。最终，我们认为一种强大的表观遗传学方法是重视自身领域之外专业知识的完整性，并能以开放而非空洞的心态进行跨学科对话。
